rO^  i-r\su^^  pcxI3i-c^TTc_  ocTi 


WHY    CHINA    REFUSED 

TO  SIGN  THE  PEACE 

TREATY 


Published  by 
/'CHINESE     PATRIOTIC     COMMITTEE 

^~'"*'""*    New  York  City 

July,    1919 


IMPORTANT   ANNOUNCEMENT 


Owing  to  the  absence  of  Mr.  K.  P.  Wang,  the 
Secretary  of  the  Committee,  please  address  all 
communications  temporarily  to 

MR.  Q.  K.  CHEN 

{Treasurer  and  Acting  Secretary) 

logo  Amsterdam  Avenue 

New  York  City 


c^c^ 


WHY   CHINA  REFUSED  TO   SIGN  THE 
PEACE  TREATY 

China's  refusal  to  sign  the  Peace  Treaty  seems 
to  have  somewhat  surprised  the  whole  world. 
Some  people  may  scoff  at  her  action  but  many 
more  have  openly  admired  her  stand.  The  reason 
for  China's  refusal  is  very  simple.  She  refused  to 
sign  the  Treaty  because  she  could  not  recognize 
nor  acquiesce  in  the  perpetuation  of  a  crime  com- 
mitted by  Germany  in  1898.  China  has  no  objec- 
tion to  the  Treaty  except  the  unjust  Shantung 
clauses  which  read  as  follows: 

ARTICLE  156.— Germany  renounces,  in  favor  of 
Japan,  all  her  rights,  titles  and  privileges — partic- 
ularly those  concerning  the  territory  of  Kiao-Chau, 
railways,  mines  and  submarine  cables,  which  she 
acquired  in  view  of  the  treaty  concluded  by  her 
with  China  on  March  6,  1898,  and  of  all  other 
arrangements  relative  to  the  Province  of  Shantung. 

ARTICLE  157.— All  German  rights  in  the  Tsing- 
tao-Tsinan-Fu  Railway,  including  its  branch  lines, 
together  with  its  subsidiary  property  of  all  kinds, 
stations,  shops,  fixed  and  rolling  stock,  mines,  plant 
and  material  for  the  exploitation  of  the  mines  are 
and  remain  acquired  by  Japan,  together  with  all 
rights  and  privileges  attaching  thereto. 

The  German  State  submarine  cables  from  Tsing- 
tao  to  Shanghai  and  from  Tsing-tao  to  Che  Foo, 
with  all  the  rights  which  Germany  might  claim  in 
consequence  of  the  works  or  improvem.ents  made 
or  of  the  expenses  incurred  by  her,  directly  or  in- 
directly in  connection  with  this  territory,  are  and 
remain  acquired  by  Japan,  free  and  clear  of  all 
charges  and  encumbrances. 


M574333 


ARTICLE  158. — Germany  shall  hand  over  to 
Japan  within  three  months  from  the  coming  into 
force  of  the  present  treaty  the  archives,  registers, 
plans,  title  deeds  and  documents  of  every  kind, 
wherever  they  may  be,  relating  to  the  administra- 
tion, whether  civil,  military,  financial,  judicial  or 
other,  of  the  territory  of  Kiao-Chau. 

Within  the  game  period  Germany  shall  give  par- 
ticulars to  Japan  of  all  treaties,  arrangements  or 
agreements  relating  to  the  rights,  title  or  privileges 
referred  to  in  the  two  preceding  articles. 

These  are  the  objoctionable  articles  which  China 
considers  to  be  unfair  and  unjust.  To  understand 
China's  position,  it  will  be  necessary  to  review 
the  facts  of  the  case.  In  the  year  1898  China  was 
forced  to  grant  to  Germany  the  so-called  lease  of 
Kiao-Chau,  and  economic  rights  or  concessions  in 
the  province  of  Shantung,  the  Holy  Land  of  China. 
After  the  World  War  broke  out  Japan  captured 
Kiao-Chau  and  seized  the  economic  rights.  There 
Japan  remains,  as  she  claims,  a  military  occupant. 
On  August  14,  191 7,  China  declared  war  against 
Germany  and  abrogated  all  her  treaties  with  Ger- 
many, including  those  relating  to  the  leased  ter- 
ritory and  the  German  economic  rights  in  Shan- 
tung. This  declaration  of  abrogation  was  officially 
notified  to  and  taken  cognizance  of  by  the  allied 
and  associated  powers  at  war  with  Germany.  As 
a  result  of  this  declaration,  the  territory  of  Kiao- 
Chau  and  all  the  German  rights  in  Shantung  have 
automatically  reverted  to  China. 

While  the  Chinese  Delegates  were  presenting 
China's  claims  to  the  Peace  conference  for  the  re- 
storation of  Kiao-Chau  and  German  rights  in  Shan- 
tung, Japan  suddenly  theatened  war  on  China,  if 
China  should  fail  "to  make  Japan  the  successor  of 
Germany  in  rights,  property,  and  concessions  held 


by  Germany  at  the  outbreak  of  the  European  War." 
On  February  lo,  191 9  the  Japanese  minister  at 
Peking  was  instructed  by  his  government  to  remind 
the  Chinese  Foreign  Minister  that  "Japan  had  an 
army  of  more  than  a  million  men  idle  at  home, 
fully  equipped  with  arms  and  ammunition  enough 
to  conduct  a  long  war,  and  to  have  pointed  out 
that  Japan  had  more  than  half  a  million  tons  of 
shippmg,  with  the  intimation  that  this  would  be 
ready  on  short  notice  for  active  work."  Owing  to 
the  firm  stand  of  the  400,000,000  Chinese  people 
the  threat  of  war  on  China  was  denied  by  the 
autocratic  Japanese  government. 

However,  the  Council  of  Three  was  frightened 
by  the  intimation  that  Japan  would  desert  the 
Peace  Conference,  that  she  would  combine  with 
Germany,  and  possibly  Russia,  if  her  demands 
relating  to  Shantung  were  not  to  be  complied  with. 
On  April  30,  1919,  they  were  hypnotized  and  com- 
pelled to  adopt  the  clauses  drafted  by  Japan,  name- 
ly, Articles  156,  157  and  158  of  the  Treaty  without 
any  regard  to  justice  and  righteousness.  These 
unjust  articles  virtually  transfer  to  Japan  the  for- 
mer German  leased  territory  and  rights  in  Shan- 
tung which  have  already  reverted  to  China,  the 
rightful  owner.  The  statement  of  the  Chinese 
Delegation  at  Paris  declares: 

It  appears  clear,  then,  that  the  Council  has  been 
bestowing  on  Japan  the  rights  not  of  Germany,  but 
of  China;  not  of  an  enemy,  but  of  an  ally.  The 
more  powerful  ally  has  reaped  a  benefit  at  the  ex- 
pense, not  of  the  common  enemy,  but  of  the  weaker 
ally. 

Who  can  explain  to  the  Chinese  people  what 
the  Peace  Conference  really  means  by  Justice?  It 
has  been  intimated  that  the  decision  of  the 
Council  in  granting  Japan's  claim  was  for  the  pur- 

3 


pose  of  saving  the  League  of  Nations.  Here  again 
the  statement  of  Chinese  Legation  is  worthy  of 
quoting : 

If  the  Council  has  granted  the  claims  of  Japan  in 
full  for  the  purpose  of  saving  the  League  of  Nations, 
as  is  intimated  to  be  the  case,  China  has  less  to  com- 
plain of,  believing,  as  she  does,  that  it  is  a  duty  to 
make  sacrifices  for  such  a  noble  cause  as  the  League 
of  Nations.  She  cannot,  however,  refrain  from 
wishing  that  the  Council  had  seen  fit,  as  would  be 
far  more  consonant  with  the  spirit  of  the  League 
now  on  the  eve  of  formation,  to  call  upon  strong 
Japan  to  forego  her  claims  animated  by  a  desire 
for  aggrandizement  instead  of  upon  weak  China  to 
surrender  what  is  hers  by  right. 

The  action  of  the  Council  provoked  a  nation-wide 
protest  in  China.  Peace  Societies  and  individuals 
poured  in  cablegrams  and  letters  by  the  hundreds 
protesting  against  the  proposed  Shantung  settle- 
ment and  requesting  the  Peace  Conference  to  re- 
consider the  Shantung  question  with  due  regard  to 
justice.  On  May  4,  the  Chinese  Legation  lodged 
with  the  Council  a  protest  against  the  transfer  to 
Japan  of  the  leased  territory  of  Kiao-Chau  and 
certain  economic  rights  formerly  held  by  Germany 
in  Shantung.  Again  on  May  6,  H.  E.  Lou  Tseng- 
tsiang,  head  of  the  Chinese  Delegation,  read  to  the 
members  of  the  Peace  Conference  the  following 
declaration : 

The  Chinese  delegation,  beg  to  express  their 
deep  disappointment  at  the  settlement  proposed  by 
the  Council  of  the  Prime  Ministers.  They  also 
feel  certain  that  this  disappointment  will  be  shared 
in  all  its  intensity  by  the  Chinese  nation.  The 
proposed  settlement  appears   to  have   been  made 

4 


without  giving  due  regard  to  the  consideration  of 
right,  justice  and  the  national  security  of  China- 
consideration  which  the  Chinese  delegation  em- 
phasized again  and  again  in  their  hearings  before 
the  Council  of  the  Prime  Ministers  against  the  pro- 
posed settlement,  in  the  hope  of  having  it  revised, 
and  if  such  revision  cannot  be  had,  they  deem  it 
their  duty  to  make  a  reservation  on  the  said  clauses 
now. 

Unbiased  spectators  naturally  think  that  all  these 
protests,  reasonable  as  they  are,  would  meet  with 
the  approval  of  the  Council,  or,  at  least,  receive 
proper  consideration  at  the  P*eace  table,  and  China 
should  be  allowed  to  make  the  reservation  she  sug- 
gested. But  to  the  surprise  of  the  whole  world  the 
protests  were  cast  away  into  the  waste  basket — a 
strong  indication  that  the  Peace  .Conference  was 
hoodwinked  and  swayed  by  the  wilful  few.  The 
Chinese  Peace  Delegation,  however,  still  pinned 
faith  to  the  Peace  Conference  as  is  evinced  by  the 
fact  that  just  three  hours  before  the  Versailles 
meeting  on  June  28  they  addressed  the  following 
correspondence  to  M.  George  Clemenceau,  Presi- 
dent of  the  Peace  Conference: 

Paris,  June  28,  19 19. 

His  Excellency,  George  Clemenceau, 
President  of  the  Peace  Conference: 

In  proceeding  to  sign  the  treaty  of  peace  with 
Germany  today,  the  undersigned,  plenipotentiaries 
of  the  Republic  of  China,  considering  as  unjust 
Articles  156,  157,  and  158,  therein,  which  purport  to 
transfer  German  rights  in  the  Chinese  province  of 
Shantung  to  Japan  instead  of  restoring  them  to 
China,  the  rightful  sovereign  over  the  territory  and 

5 


a  loyal  co-partner  in  war  on  the  side  of  the  allied 
and  associated  powers,  hereby  declared  in  the  name 
and  on  behalf  of  their  Government,  that  their  sign- 
ing of  the  treaty  is  not  to  be  understood  as  preclud- 
ing China  from  demanding  at  a  suitable  moment 
the  reconsideration  of  the  Shantung  question,  to 
the  end  that  the  injustice  to  China  may  be  rectified 
in  the  interest  of  permanent  peace  in  the  Far  East. 

Lou  Tseng  Thiang 
Chenting  Thomas  Wang. 

In  a  few  minutes  M.  Dutasta,  Secretary  of  the 
General  Peace  Conference  reported  that  none  of 
the  Big  Three  would  consent  to  allow  China  to  sign 
the  Treaty  with  the  above  declaration. 

It  is  seen  that  the  Peace  Conference  has  denied 
to  the  Chinese  Delegates  the  privilage  of  making 
any  suggestions.  Their  proposal  for  revision  was 
rejected.  Their  request  for  making  a  reservation 
was  turned  down.  And  their  plea  to  make  a 
declaration  was  disregarded.  Thus  the  Chinese 
Delegates  had  no  alternative  but  to  refuse  to  sign 
the  treaty.  Mystery  still  looms  over  the  manner 
in  which  the  Council  of  Three  decided  to  bestow 
Chinese  territory  and  Chinese  rights  in  Shantung 
upon  Japan.  It  may  be  that  the  Council  was  cajoled 
into  accepting  the  Japanese  viewpoint.  Or  it  may 
be  that  the  Council  was  bulldozed  into  confirming 
Japan's  loot.  Whatever  may  have  been  the  method 
with  which  Japan  approached  the  leading  per- 
sonages at  the  Conference  the  Council  of  Three 
was  entirely  responsible  for  the  perpetuation  of  a 
crime  which  ought  to  have  been  rectified  in  the 
interest  of  justice  and  world  peace.  Japan's  suc- 
cess at  the  Peace  Conference  smirches  the  honor 
and  dignity  of  all  the  nations  of  the  world.  The 
subtle  methods  of  Japan  have  shocked  the  whole 


civilized  world   and  turned  the   tide  of  sentiment 
against  Japan  more  strongly  than  ever  before. 

China's  refusal  to  sign  the  Treaty  v^ithout  a  reser- 
vation or  a  declaration  as  to  Shantung  clauses  is  a 
protest  against  injustic  as  well  as  an  appeal  for 
justice.  The  statement  of  the  Chinese  Delegation, 
issued  on  the  evening  of  June  28,  reads  in  part  as 
follows : 

After  failing,  in  all  earnest  attempts  at  con- 
ciliation, and  after  seeing  every  honorable  com- 
promise rejected,  the  Chinese  delegation  had  no 
course  open  save  to  adhere  to  the  path  of  duty  to 
their  country. 

Rather  than  accept  by  their  signatures  the 
Shantung  articles  in  the  treaty  against  which  their 
sense  of  right  and  justice  militated,  they  refrained 
from  signing  the  treaty  altogether.  The  Chinese 
plenipotentiaries  regret  having  to  take  a  course 
which  appears  to  mar  the  solidarity  of  the  allied 
and  associated  powers,  but  they  are  firmly  of  the 
opinion,  however,  that  responsibility  for  this  rests 
not  with  themselves,  who  had  no  other  honorable 
course,  but  rather  with  those  who,  it  is  felt,  unjustly 
and  unnecessarily  deprived  them  of  the  right  of 
making  a  declaration  to  safeguard  against  any  inter- 
pretation which  might  preclude  China  from  asking 
for  reconsideration  of  the  Shantung  question  at  a 
suitable  moment  in  the  future,  in  the  hope  that  the 
injustice  to  China  might  be  rectified  later  in  the 
interest  of  permanent  peace  in  the  Far  East. 

The  Peace  Conference  having  denied  China 
justice  in  the  settlement  of  the  Shantung  question, 
and  having  today,  in  effect,  prevented  the  delegation 

7 


from  signing  the  treaty  without  sacrificing  their 
sense  of  right,  justice,  and  patriotic  duty,  the 
Chinese  delegates  submit  their  case  to  the  imperial 
judgment  of  the  world. 

Now  the  case  is  at  the  bar  of  Public  Opinion.  The 
facts  of  the  case  are  already  apparent.  Is  it  right 
for  the  Big  Three  to  take  away  the  Chinese  terri- 
tory and  rights  just  recovered  from  Germany  and 
give  them  to  Japan?  Is  it  justice  for  the  Big  Three 
to  deny  to  the  Chinese  people  affected  by  this  Shan- 
tung settlement  the  right  of  self  determination? 
Is  the  Shantung  award  compatible  with  the  world 
profession  for  a  just  and  stable  peace? 

These  are  the  questions  to  which  the  attention 
of  the  world  is  called  in  making  its  sound,  impartial 
and  final  judgment  on  the  case. 


LIST  OF  PUBLICATIONS 

1.  China  vs.  Japan,  February,  1919. 

2.  China's  Claims  at  the  Peace  Table.  March,  1919 

3.  The  Kiao-Chau  Settlement.     May,   1919. 

4.  Might  or  Right?     May,  1919. 

5.  Why  China  Refused  to  Sign  the  Peace  Treaty. 

July,   1919. 

These  publications  will  be  mailed  upon  application  to 
Mr.  Q.  K.  Chen  whose  address  is  given  on  the  second  page  of 
the  cover. 


14  DAY  USE 

RFTURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below, 
or  on  the  date  to  which  renewed.  Renewals  only: 

Tel.  No.  642-3405 
Renewals  may  be  made  4  days  priod  to  date  due. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


NOV  1119706 


V    g/Q-liM^^fe 


••iiillliili 


LD21A-60m-8,'70 
(N8837sl0)476— A-32 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


iiliiPII 


